Supreme Court sets aside death sentence of man convicted for killing family

The Supreme Court recently acquitted a man who was sentenced to death after finding that the prosecution had failed to prove his guilt beyond reasonable doubt. [Baljinder Kaur v. State of Punjab]

A three-judge Bench of Justices Vikram Nath, Sanjay Karol and Sandeep Mehta held that serious contradictions in the testimonies of key witnesses and glaring lapses in the investigation made the prosecution case unreliable.

“When at stake are human lives and the cost is blood, the matter needs to be dealt with utmost sincerity,” the Court said, adding that the standard of proof in criminal trials must be applied with absolute strictness.

At the outset, the Court lamented the manner in which the case was investigated, observing,

"The breakdown of the legal system becomes apparent when such haste to lay a finger of blame on somebody leads to a shoddy investigation and a poorly conducted trial. The result is a loosely tied prosecution case with glaring loopholes all across and yet the Courts’ enthusiasm to deliver justice in such a heinous crime ensures that the accused person ends up on the death row, albeit without sufficient evidence."

The case arose from a 2013 incident in Punjab where four members of a family, including two children, were killed and two others were seriously injured.

The trial court had found the appellant - the father of the two children - guilty of murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) on four counts, and also convicted him under Sections 308 (attempt to commit culpable homicide not amounting to murder) and 325 (voluntarily causing grievous hurt) IPC. He was sentenced to death and the High Court had confirmed the conviction and sentence.

In its analysis, the Supreme Court found that the testimonies of two key witnesses were riddled with material contradictions.

The Court noted that PW1’s presence at the scene of the crime was doubtful. While the first information report (FIR) stated he was present outside the house and saw the accused fleeing, his later deposition introduced new details, including the presence of unidentified persons.

PW2, who claimed to be an eyewitness, gave inconsistent accounts of when and how she saw the attack, including contradictions on whether she witnessed the incident or fled beforehand.

The Court observed,

“These jarring inconsistencies suggest that the statement of PW2 is highly shaky, varies at every other turn and is not reliable at all.”

It further held that PW1 appeared to have been introduced as a “sham witness” by the prosecution.

On the testimony of PW17, an injured child witness, the Court said that although his presence at the scene was not in doubt, his testimony did not incriminate the accused. During cross-examination, the witness admitted he had been asleep during the attack and had not seen who assaulted him or the others.

“In the instant case, there are different versions of the same set of events being told by these witnesses at differing points of time...Statements were retracted and remoulded as per convenience, wherein such differences led to material alterations in the chain of events," the judgment stated.

The Court also expressed concern over the manner of investigation and recovery of evidence. It noted that the recovery of the alleged murder weapon and blood-stained clothes was not supported by any independent witness, and that the disclosure and recovery occurred two months after the incident.

It further observed that the weapon was later misplaced and no DNA or conclusive forensic linkage was established between the weapon, clothes and the deceased.

The Court concluded that in light of serious contradictions in witness testimonies, unreliable recoveries and investigative lapses, the charge had not been proved beyond reasonable doubt.

Senior Advocate Dama Seshadri Naidu appeared for the appellant. Advocate Siddhant Sharma appeared for the State of Punjab.

[Read Judgment]